The licence of a bar has been thrown into doubt after police called it in for review.

Reports of people being drunk and disorderly, drug use and sexual assaults at Harbour View in Wellington Road, Portslade, have led Sussex Police to apply to have its licence reviewed.

Officers have now asked the city's licensing committee to consider whether the venue should be allowed to stay open.

The latest licence for the bar was issued to its owner in October 2013 but since then there have been concerns.

Among them have been assaults on police officers called to disturbances involving underage Harbour View customers, children being sold alcohol and reports of women being sexually assaulted.

Licensing officers found traces of cocaine in both public and private areas of the venue and heroin in a public part of the venue.

Two people living in the flat above the venue that belonged to the owner were arrested for immigration offences in November.

There have also been recorded breaches of the conditions of the licence, including a lack of working CCTV, no training records being available and no evidence that toilets were being regularly checked.

On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl.

Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles.

Sergeant Simon Morgan, the Brighton and Hove licensing supervisor for Sussex Police, said: "Submitting a review application is the last course of action we will take on our stepped approach to enforcement.

"However the serious nature of the incidents at the premises have left us with no other option."

Jean Irving, the force's licensing and public safety manager, said: "Due to the number of times officers have compelled the owner of Harbour View to adhere to the conditions of the licence, without success, I believe there is no alternative other than to ask the licensing committee to give serious consideration to revoking the premises licence of the venue.

"Despite numerous interventions by our officers and Brighton and Hove City Council, there have been continued failures by the management and staff to promote the licensing objectives, which are designed to protect children from harm and prevent crime and disorder.

"The management has shown a clear disregard to the conditions of the licence. This is unacceptable and we will not stand by while people are being put at risk because of behaviour inside the venue."

Comments (27)

" On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl.

Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. "

I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18.

Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.

" On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl.
Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. "
I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18.
Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.notslimjim

notslimjim wrote:
&quot; On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.

barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.

[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote:
" On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.[/p][/quote]barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.Legal1974

notslimjim wrote:
&quot; On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.

barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.

No, they aren't.

There is no such legal requirement.

The law states:

Where a person is charged with an offence under this section by reason of his own conduct it is a defence that—

(a)he believed that the individual was aged 18 or over, and

(b)either—

(i)he had taken all reasonable steps to establish the individual’s age, or

(ii)nobody could reasonably have suspected from the individual’s appearance that he was aged under 18.

http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/ukpga/2003
/17/section/146

Please don't mention Challenge 25.....that was an industry-led initiative designed to protect landlords.

[quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote:
" On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.[/p][/quote]barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.[/p][/quote]No, they aren't.
There is no such legal requirement.
The law states:
Where a person is charged with an offence under this section by reason of his own conduct it is a defence that—
(a)he believed that the individual was aged 18 or over, and
(b)either—
(i)he had taken all reasonable steps to establish the individual’s age, or
(ii)nobody could reasonably have suspected from the individual’s appearance that he was aged under 18.
http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/ukpga/2003
/17/section/146
Please don't mention Challenge 25.....that was an industry-led initiative designed to protect landlords.notslimjim

i am surprised that the E H O have not paid the place a visit ,looking from the outside it looks filthy ,the chickens running the outside cant be the best thing in the world for hygiene ,it looks more like a squat than a public house

i am surprised that the E H O have not paid the place a visit ,looking from the outside it looks filthy ,the chickens running the outside cant be the best thing in the world for hygiene ,it looks more like a squat than a public housewhatevernext2013

micklin wrote:
I think this pub is linked to the car wash next door. Probably none of the money taken in either the pub or car wash finds it way back in to the treasury.

cars aren't the only thing being washed next door....

[quote][p][bold]micklin[/bold] wrote:
I think this pub is linked to the car wash next door. Probably none of the money taken in either the pub or car wash finds it way back in to the treasury.[/p][/quote]cars aren't the only thing being washed next door....Wide Bertha

micklin wrote:
I think this pub is linked to the car wash next door. Probably none of the money taken in either the pub or car wash finds it way back in to the treasury.

Can't say much about the pub, as I don't drink, but I guarentee you that this is not the only pub in this drunk nation to break the law! Certainly if they are breaking the law then punish away. BUT, I will say that the car wash a the best one I have used in the area. I wouldn't take my car anywhere else.

[quote][p][bold]micklin[/bold] wrote:
I think this pub is linked to the car wash next door. Probably none of the money taken in either the pub or car wash finds it way back in to the treasury.[/p][/quote]Can't say much about the pub, as I don't drink, but I guarentee you that this is not the only pub in this drunk nation to break the law! Certainly if they are breaking the law then punish away. BUT, I will say that the car wash a the best one I have used in the area. I wouldn't take my car anywhere else.Catey cat

notslimjim wrote:
&quot; On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.

barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.

Stevo doesn't care about facts. (notslimjim is Stevo's new username after Stevo finally got banned for racist and homophobic remarks).

[quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote:
" On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.[/p][/quote]barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.[/p][/quote]Stevo doesn't care about facts. (notslimjim is Stevo's new username after Stevo finally got banned for racist and homophobic remarks).Ambo Guy

notslimjim wrote:
&quot; On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.

barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.

Stevo doesn't care about facts. (notslimjim is Stevo's new username after Stevo finally got banned for racist and homophobic remarks).

[quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote:
" On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.[/p][/quote]barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.[/p][/quote]Stevo doesn't care about facts. (notslimjim is Stevo's new username after Stevo finally got banned for racist and homophobic remarks).Ambo Guy

notslimjim wrote:
&quot; On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.

barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.

Stevo doesn't care about facts. (notslimjim is Stevo's new username after Stevo finally got banned for racist and homophobic remarks).

It is bad enough listening to you waffle on endlessly against your nemesis on here not making a suitable valid point, which combined with your imbecilic slavish sycophancy towards Sussex Police is boorish in EXTREMIS .... but your repeat postings are the limit!

[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote:
" On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.[/p][/quote]barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.[/p][/quote]Stevo doesn't care about facts. (notslimjim is Stevo's new username after Stevo finally got banned for racist and homophobic remarks).[/p][/quote]It is bad enough listening to you waffle on endlessly against your nemesis on here not making a suitable valid point, which combined with your imbecilic slavish sycophancy towards Sussex Police is boorish in EXTREMIS .... but your repeat postings are the limit!Valentinian

notslimjim wrote:
&quot; On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.

barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.

Stevo doesn't care about facts. (notslimjim is Stevo's new username after Stevo finally got banned for racist and homophobic remarks).

It is bad enough listening to you waffle on endlessly against your nemesis on here not making a suitable valid point, which combined with your imbecilic slavish sycophancy towards Sussex Police is boorish in EXTREMIS .... but your repeat postings are the limit!

Bloody hell yet another username eh Stevo? Don't you get tired having to log out of one and back in with another all the time?
You really are one sad c**t.

A man was in a car crash and was knocked out.

The Paramedic brought him round.

"Where am I?" he muttered

"First things first. How many fingers am I holding up?" He asked

"Eleven" replied..

"You're in Bognor Regis by the way." HE SMILED....

I said " I already guessed that"

"

[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Valentinian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote:
" On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.[/p][/quote]barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.[/p][/quote]Stevo doesn't care about facts. (notslimjim is Stevo's new username after Stevo finally got banned for racist and homophobic remarks).[/p][/quote]It is bad enough listening to you waffle on endlessly against your nemesis on here not making a suitable valid point, which combined with your imbecilic slavish sycophancy towards Sussex Police is boorish in EXTREMIS .... but your repeat postings are the limit![/p][/quote]Bloody hell yet another username eh Stevo? Don't you get tired having to log out of one and back in with another all the time?
You really are one sad c**t.[/p][/quote]A man was in a car crash and was knocked out.
The Paramedic brought him round.
"Where am I?" he muttered
"First things first. How many fingers am I holding up?" He asked
"Eleven" replied..
"You're in Bognor Regis by the way." HE SMILED....
I said " I already guessed that"
"Valentinian

notslimjim wrote:
&quot; On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.

barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.

Stevo doesn't care about facts. (notslimjim is Stevo's new username after Stevo finally got banned for racist and homophobic remarks).

So why don't you ever correct my posts?

Is it because you're stupid or because they are impossible to correct?

Either is good.

[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Legal1974[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote:
" On July 28, during a test purchase operation, a member of staff sold alcohol to a 16-year-old girl. Not only was the child not asked to prove she was at least 18 but she was offered the chance to buy doubles rather than singles. " I can guarantee that the police ( who plainly have nothing better to do) chose a girl who looked older than 18. Why bother with such a sting? They clearly have enough evidence in support of refusing the licence.[/p][/quote]barstaff and shop assistants are obliged by law to ID anyone who looks under the age of 25.[/p][/quote]Stevo doesn't care about facts. (notslimjim is Stevo's new username after Stevo finally got banned for racist and homophobic remarks).[/p][/quote]So why don't you ever correct my posts?
Is it because you're stupid or because they are impossible to correct?
Either is good.notslimjim

Ambo Guy, by all means give him the thumbs down but don't respond to his posts. We all know what he's like and also know that he'll never change regardless of the name he's using. Don't risk losing the respect that YOU have on here by lowering yourself to his level. Just ignore him as unfortunately, he tends to bring out the bad side in you (no offence meant).

[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote:
Oh dear. Not nice being found out is it Stevo?
I'll leave you alone today you sad c**t as you're clearly beneath me and at least now everyone else knows about your multiple usernames now.[/p][/quote]Ambo Guy, by all means give him the thumbs down but don't respond to his posts. We all know what he's like and also know that he'll never change regardless of the name he's using. Don't risk losing the respect that YOU have on here by lowering yourself to his level. Just ignore him as unfortunately, he tends to bring out the bad side in you (no offence meant).Watchdog50

Ambo Guy, by all means give him the thumbs down but don't respond to his posts. We all know what he's like and also know that he'll never change regardless of the name he's using. Don't risk losing the respect that YOU have on here by lowering yourself to his level. Just ignore him as unfortunately, he tends to bring out the bad side in you (no offence meant).

Yeah you're right. I apologise for going down to the gutter level he's at.

[quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote:
Oh dear. Not nice being found out is it Stevo?
I'll leave you alone today you sad c**t as you're clearly beneath me and at least now everyone else knows about your multiple usernames now.[/p][/quote]Ambo Guy, by all means give him the thumbs down but don't respond to his posts. We all know what he's like and also know that he'll never change regardless of the name he's using. Don't risk losing the respect that YOU have on here by lowering yourself to his level. Just ignore him as unfortunately, he tends to bring out the bad side in you (no offence meant).[/p][/quote]Yeah you're right. I apologise for going down to the gutter level he's at.Ambo Guy

Ambo Guy, by all means give him the thumbs down but don't respond to his posts. We all know what he's like and also know that he'll never change regardless of the name he's using. Don't risk losing the respect that YOU have on here by lowering yourself to his level. Just ignore him as unfortunately, he tends to bring out the bad side in you (no offence meant).

Yeah you're right. I apologise for going down to the gutter level he's at.

I shall continue o comment upon the drivel you come out with, and there is nothing you can do about that.

[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote:
Oh dear. Not nice being found out is it Stevo?
I'll leave you alone today you sad c**t as you're clearly beneath me and at least now everyone else knows about your multiple usernames now.[/p][/quote]Ambo Guy, by all means give him the thumbs down but don't respond to his posts. We all know what he's like and also know that he'll never change regardless of the name he's using. Don't risk losing the respect that YOU have on here by lowering yourself to his level. Just ignore him as unfortunately, he tends to bring out the bad side in you (no offence meant).[/p][/quote]Yeah you're right. I apologise for going down to the gutter level he's at.[/p][/quote]Basically, you showed your true colours - ignorance and abuse are all you're fit for.
I shall continue o comment upon the drivel you come out with, and there is nothing you can do about that.notslimjim

Ambo Guy, by all means give him the thumbs down but don't respond to his posts. We all know what he's like and also know that he'll never change regardless of the name he's using. Don't risk losing the respect that YOU have on here by lowering yourself to his level. Just ignore him as unfortunately, he tends to bring out the bad side in you (no offence meant).

Yeah you're right. I apologise for going down to the gutter level he's at.

I shall continue o comment upon the drivel you come out with, and there is nothing you can do about that.

With you on that, he is a WANNABEE and an apologist for the Police Force, logging on repeatedly to thumbs down remakes against him and I nearly laughed out loud at the comment 'don't lose the respect YOU have on here' hahaha
I can smell the urine from here, he ferried old fogeys around hence the Ambulance monicker lol.....and the incontinence issues they have leave him... 'On the nose'

[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote:
Oh dear. Not nice being found out is it Stevo?
I'll leave you alone today you sad c**t as you're clearly beneath me and at least now everyone else knows about your multiple usernames now.[/p][/quote]Ambo Guy, by all means give him the thumbs down but don't respond to his posts. We all know what he's like and also know that he'll never change regardless of the name he's using. Don't risk losing the respect that YOU have on here by lowering yourself to his level. Just ignore him as unfortunately, he tends to bring out the bad side in you (no offence meant).[/p][/quote]Yeah you're right. I apologise for going down to the gutter level he's at.[/p][/quote]Basically, you showed your true colours - ignorance and abuse are all you're fit for.
I shall continue o comment upon the drivel you come out with, and there is nothing you can do about that.[/p][/quote]With you on that, he is a WANNABEE and an apologist for the Police Force, logging on repeatedly to thumbs down remakes against him and I nearly laughed out loud at the comment 'don't lose the respect YOU have on here' hahaha
I can smell the urine from here, he ferried old fogeys around hence the Ambulance monicker lol.....and the incontinence issues they have leave him... 'On the nose'Valentinian

this whole pub is a den of vice and iniquity,,,i heard rumours of after hours **** and dog fighting...plus a robbery was planned here.. as for that herbert who works behind the bar,short lad,vest top,spiky hair,he is the mastermind of the under age sex ring that operates there too.....

this whole pub is a den of vice and iniquity,,,i heard rumours of after hours **** and dog fighting...plus a robbery was planned here.. as for that herbert who works behind the bar,short lad,vest top,spiky hair,he is the mastermind of the under age sex ring that operates there too.....bobbybobbington

bobbybobbington wrote:
this whole pub is a den of vice and iniquity,,,i heard rumours of after hours **** and dog fighting...plus a robbery was planned here.. as for that herbert who works behind the bar,short lad,vest top,spiky hair,he is the mastermind of the under age sex ring that operates there too.....

i also heard the meat raffle isnt for "edible" meat if you know what i mean,more like the sort of meat you find in a short skirt.... absolutely disgusting!!

[quote][p][bold]bobbybobbington[/bold] wrote:
this whole pub is a den of vice and iniquity,,,i heard rumours of after hours **** and dog fighting...plus a robbery was planned here.. as for that herbert who works behind the bar,short lad,vest top,spiky hair,he is the mastermind of the under age sex ring that operates there too.....[/p][/quote]i also heard the meat raffle isnt for "edible" meat if you know what i mean,more like the sort of meat you find in a short skirt.... absolutely disgusting!!bobbybobbington